政府使用公權力是否可以不顧人民的死活？

圖片引自yahoo新聞，自由時報 2009/7/21

我們不能否認違章建築應該被拆除，因為違建不僅可能是侵佔國有土地，更有可能導致公共安全的問題。然而新店陽光運動公園的拆除事件並不只是單純的違建拆除問題，它涉及到是基本人權的問題以及政府執行公權力是否適當的問題。

「限時三天，強制驅離」，就是這句話把我們拉回到五十年前的威權體制，一切都是政府說了算。它要執行的公務是不容許任何差錯的，就算今天要犧牲掉人民的權益，它也在所不惜。回顧歷史，兩千年前的秦始皇不也是罔顧人民需求、生命，就為了要建造出可以保家衛國的萬里長城嗎？以建物的功能來看，萬里長城是偉大的，而陽光運動公園同樣具有一種促進人民生活幸福的功能。但以執行者的目的來看，秦始皇的萬里長城不過就是他為了永保帝業的方式之一。同樣的，陽光運動公園的建造實質上不過就是試圖為即將來到的縣市長選舉作準備。政治一直是現實的，而人是無法不為權與錢而服務的，因此政客試圖維持其既有利益也是理所當然的。柏拉圖的理想國不過就是個永遠無法實現的烏托邦，而烏托邦也只能活在知識分子的想像中。

由於已知烏托邦永不能實現，而政客對於權力的獲取又是不可避免的，知識分子只好退而求其次的以古雅典的政治制度作為出發點，推想出了一種折衷的民主的政治－－人民具有權力，政府是為人民服務的機制。但是在這種制度下真實的權力的獲取與運用仍是隱藏的，不過它卻是以另一種虛假的開放的形式顯現在人民眼前。藉由民主制度，一般人民被賦與了部分的權力，而這些權力是用來監督由他們自己選擇出來的政客，並且是用來確保他們能在政府機制的保護下幸福的、快樂的生活。不論真實的權力的獲取與運用是否適當或者能被顯現出來，至少民主的機制是要保護其下廣大的民眾，並盡其所能的服務民眾和滿足民眾的需求。這種機制允許了政客對權力的貪婪與慾望，不過它同時也禁止了政客過當的行為與舉動。所以他仍是反威權的、仍是以民為主的政治體制。

如果民主的體制是反威權、是以民生為重的機制，那麼新店陽光運動公園的事件不就顯示出台灣的不民主與威權的復甦？就民主制度來看，國家的機制是有權對不合理、違法、危害人民生活安全的事物以公權力介入處理的。但前提是在執行公權力的過程中，人民的福祉是必須被照顧的並且維護的。回頭看陽光運動公園事件，我們發現到台北縣政府，作為國家機制的代理人，並未顧及到當地居民的生活狀態，而只是一味的為達成目的而執行其公權力。

首先，不斷更改拆除線就是一個問題。若是公園設置早就安排妥當，為什麼拆除線會不斷更動？水利署的說法是要不斷探勘河道並作出修正。但為什麼這聽起來像是推拖之詞？這不禁使我們懷疑國家機制代理人的能力是否出現問題？人民需要深入了解的是代理人出現了什麼樣的問題。如果最後發現代理人不能勝任他現有的位置，那麼當地的人民，作為機制監督者，應該以他們被賦與的權力對此代理人作出懲罰，那就是不再以選票擔保他的能力。

第二點，現時強制驅離本身就是一種反應威權的行為。並不是說民主機制下不能採取強制性行為，而是在採用強制性行為時，機制代理人是否已對當地居民的需要與生活作出安全性與穩定性的承諾。相信一般人都會對已居住了五十年的老房子產生感情，要搬家畢竟是不捨的，不過大多數人民並不會只因感情因素而拒絕搬家（當然的我們不能否認因感情而出現非理性行為的人的存在）。今天事件會演變成頭條新聞的主要原因即在機制代理人並無任何保障當地居民生活的計畫，並且還以公權力擁有者的身分對人民作出傷害其生命安全與生活安全的行為。中華民國憲法明定國家保障人民生活安全的條文，然而在這個例子中可笑的是國家機制代理人直接挑戰了憲法，換句話說，他挑戰了台灣的民主制度。

最後，公權力執行的方式是值得我們討論的一點，而這一點與上述的配套措施有緊密的關連性。限時三天是可以接受的，如果拆除法令早已發佈，而相關配套措施已決定並可執行，並且是對當地居民屢勸無效的狀況之下。依照相關報導，似乎拆除令是已經發佈並已宣導，但是問題的癥結在於拆除線的變更以及對居民後續生活安排的缺乏。再一次的，執行的魄力似乎並不等同於人民福祉的計畫與照顧。如過一位國家機制代理人只是個政策執行者，那麼任何人，只要是會執行政策的人，都可以是國家機制的代理人，那麼為什麼還要用選票擔保他的能力呢？

就在昨天，台灣的風度偏偏的總統再次地擔保了這位台北縣縣長的能力，也再次地強調了他執行公權力的合法性與「魄力」。我雖不是台北縣民，雖仍是馬總統的支持者，在聽了他對台北縣長的支持後，我不禁懷疑起馬總統是否真的具備了操控國家機制的能力。這讓我不斷想起了「權力腐化人心」這一句話。傳統中國的士是以仁為己任，為求仁他入世，也是為求仁他出世。仁，不就是人嗎？而士的任務不就是將仁的觀念普及於世間嗎？（關於中國傳統價值觀與士的論述可參考余英時的著作）儒家思想是重人的，何以現代台灣社會對人是如此的看輕？為什麼人不具任何價值了？身為領導者，他是否應將他的人民擺在比選黨主席這件事更重要的位置上？是否一縣之父母官應將其縣民作為親身之子女般看待，而不是拆了他們的房子任其風吹雨淋日曬，之後再說是為了他們的生活休閒著想所以拆房子蓋公園？是否人沒房子住了，可以去住公園？這是什麼邏輯，這是什麼政府！

Goodbye Pina Bausch

One of the greatest dancers in dance history; a sincere dancer who devoted every minute of her life to her beloved dance. Pina Bausch is not only a dancer. She is a real artist, a philosopher, and a saint.

It is her passion for life that brings a strong humanist concern to her dance. This humanist concern, whether it is a concern about human emotions or a concern about the contemporary social disorders, is embedded in every gesture and movement of her dance, and therefore the viceral expressions of her body (and the bodies of her dancers) transforms classical balletic body - mechanical bodies with all sorts of techniques - into a real human body that is full of emotions and consciousness.

It is the rediscovery of what human body should be that makes her dance so beautiful and powerful. These bodies are no longer objects that are used to show techniques but lived human beings who tell stories to their audiences. Through the dancer's use of body, different emotions and consciousness are expressed. And through the reorginzation of these emotions and consciousness, a story is presented in front of the eyes of every spectator. We all agree that using only bodies, instead of using any known languages, to tell stories is difficult. Bausch was such a great choreographer who was able to tell a story beautifully with only the bodies of her dancers.

Using body to tell a story about us, about our world, differentiates her dance from our normal perception of dance. Dance ceases to be a form with a simple storyline that is always about something unreal, about princes and princesses. Showing bodies with difficult techniques, like a circus, stops being the primary concern of dance; however, this does not mean that her dance lacks any techniques. Thus, her dance cannot be called dance anymore because such an old-fashioned concept of dance is not what she presented us. It is Tanztheater, a new form of dance. The style of Tanztheater has influenced many choreographers all over the world, including another world-famous dance group, Cloud Gate Dance Theatre.

A story is told and the conscious bodies are full of emotional power. It is the combination of these two distinct characteristics that draw the audience to attend the performances. The performance is about us, and what we see and feel is what we truly experience in real life. Nothing is better than something we experience that is so vivid that touches our deepest emotions. We know it is only dance but we cannot help outselves crying and laughing because the power of these dancers' bodies overwhelms us.

How sad that Pina Bausch left us so early. Thank you for giving us so many great dances, and thank you for giving us Tanztheater.

Brüno: a mockery of gay stereotyping or a promotion of homophobia

photo from wikipedia

Again, Sacha Baron Cohen will try his best to blow us away with his forthcoming film Brüno. His previous works,Da Ali G Show or Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, are hilarious, if we only look at them from the perspective of 'farce' disregarding the hidden cultural conflicts and prejudice. Yes, as a 'normal' consumer (of entertainment, media and culture), I agree that his works provide me a great chance for a good laugh. However, being an 'abnormal' consumer of the modern society, I found his works quite disturbing and highly problematic.

Transforming himself (a straight male in real life) into a gay fashion reporter from Austria, what exactly does Cohen want to say to his audiences? The Bruno character has been seen in Da Ali G Show, and the behaviour of this specific character is the stereotyping of 'what a gay man should be'. The New York Times reports that such a character reinforces the stereotype of homosexuals and thus might validate homophobia. The report says that the film in fact is to show what the life of the minority group - the homosexuals - is and to mock those who are afraid of these flamboyant boys (or queens). However, his approach and jokes, as the report says, seems too deep for the normal consumers to understand. Indeed, we always tend to pick up the face value of whatever we see, especially in comedy or farce - what makes us laugh is never something that needs to be thought of. If what we laugh at in this film is Bruno's very gay behaviour, tones, and expression (and I believe this is where the most of the audience find hilarious), then the character only makes the public confirm their imagined image of homosexuals. Of course, Bruno's gayness (highly visceral, all about the body) could be a mockery of how we choose to detest and then ignore the existence of these people. But this requires the audience to really look into the details of the film and think. In the meantime, such critical context, as in Borat, is only a vague concept that is placed deep inside the film. Hence, normal audiences will never be able to pick it up. They will never know it is them who are mocked by the characters on screen. Since whatever is critical in his work is always a vauge concept (such should be a modern trend in our contemporary society - everything is vauge and face value rules), the reuslt of this film might be a reinforcement of the gay stereotypes covertly promoting homophobia.

Though I have decided that this film would have helped those confirm their imagined image of homosexuals, I still would like to see it. It is not a crime to have a good laugh at the cinema. Maybe there is really something meaningful and critical in the film, and we have to see it ourselves to tease it out.